wake_up_bomb wrote:
If memory serves, I said I wasn't an engineer and wasn't that arsed because I don't do technical stuff and had read the NIST report but didn't have a fucking clue what most of it was going on about, you posted a bunch of WTC7 stuff that wasn't all that technical stuff I don't understand, I said it was bullshit, I was arguing I think pretty explicitly that I thought it collapsed due to fire, you were saying there wasn't enough fire, you said said all that smoke wasn't coming from the building, I said that was bollocks, you said it wasn't, I said it was etc and then you came up with your fireman trauma theory wotsit and by that time we'd fallen out in a big way. It's amazing how people can fall out over a building falling down.

dogsmilk wrote: I've forgotten about it, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not arguing with anyone ever again, it's a waste of time. There's no falling out, I just wanted to know what your view is. You don't want to give it - fine. End of story.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Yeah? - I thought you were going to do that thing where you say to someone what you think and they go well how do do you explain this then? and you get sucked into pages of stuff - particularly since as I was concerned you already knew exactly what I thought - and brought it up totally out of the blue with 'by the way he thinks this' sort of thing so sorry if you weren't going to do that - but you know the drill on these interweb forums.

dogsmilk wrote: No. I was just trying to understand your view because....well, I think with this subject the two 'sides' become very entrenched. And it shouldn't be like that. There shouldn't even be two sides. As I was saying the other day, people on JREF won't even concede re: Kissinger what the New York Times has acknowledged. And I think it's because they can't even concede that someone they fundamentally disagree with might have made a reasonable point. And I think those that believe it was an inside job can be just as bad. I would never go on JREF and try to discuss the issue with people because they don't want to look at it critically, in my view. Similarly, I'm loath to tell certain people that I think the evidence regarding the Pentagon not being hit by a plane, while it can look convincing and there are some unanswered questions, can also be misleading, and that absent of some video footage of what occurred, we can't draw strong conclusions. But on balance, I agree with most points raised in the video, and I've read a lot of the 'debunking' stuff, and I find it to be very unsatisfactory. But other people think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. And it just becomes a pointless ping-pong match, which isn't really necessary.

I can list my views now. I'm not going to explain why I believe these things, nor I am interested in arguing back and forth about them, but I've looked at a lot of the evidence from both 'sides' and spoken to a reasonable number of people that are credentialed:

- I'm dubious that the people named by the US authorities were the 'hijackers'. I can't say for sure, but media reports would seem to suggest that there is considerable doubt about this. The US authorities have certainly never cleared the matter up, despite the fact that some of them were alive five years after the event!

- It seems quite unlikely that the pilots, including ex-military people, would relinquish the controls of the plane. It's impossible to say for sure because the black boxes mysteriously disappeared.

- I don't believe that it's possible for people who are worse Cessna pilots than me to navigate to New York using instrumentation without speaking to air-traffic control.

- I have heard some disagreement regarding the manoeuvres utilised to hit the WTC. Some pilots maintain that they wouldn't be all that difficult to do. Others state the complete opposite. Speaking as someone who has flown more than one type of two-engine plane and completed the circuit of an airfield that some of the 9/11 pilots reportedly could not complete, I'm fairly dubious that such poor Cessna pilots would be able to pull it off. I wouldn't be able to in a two-engine plane, let alone a jet airliner. However, we can't say for certain what happened because the black boxes mysteriously disappeared.

- I don't believe Hani Hanjour would have been able to pull off the Pentagon manoeuvre. I'm not sure it would be possible for any human pilot in a jet airliner, but I'm damned sure a poor Cessna pilot couldn't even conceivably do it.

- I'm ambivalent regarding whether a plane hit the Pentagon. I think it's possible. It's very hard to say as all video evidence was systematically repressed, and has never been released.

- It seems highly probable that Flight 93 was shot down. If it wasn't shot down, this simply makes the lack of air response even more baffling considering this occurred over two hours after the first plane flew off course, both towers had been hit, the Pentagon had been hit, and one of the towers had collapsed, and everyone in the world that was watching TV was by now watching events literally unfold before them. But no NORAD response!

- I think the lack of NORAD response to the four flights is ludicrous and gives indication of a stand down, particularly given the exercises that were also operating at the time. I nearly became an air-traffic controller (hence the fact that I was practicing piloting) and I've spoken to other people from NATS, and not one person I've spoken to believes the official story in this regard. Several people from NATS also question the pilots ability with regard to the WTC. None of the people I've spoken to from NATS believe Hani Hanjour could have pulled off the Pentagon manoeuvre.

- I've looked at material from both 'sides', and the NIST report, and I haven't seen any reasonable explanation of how the World Trade Center Twin Towers were completely pulverised when they collapsed. This is absolutely unheard of, despite dozens of other similar building collapses all over the world. I don't believe that they collapsed solely due to fire and plane damage. It's impossible for me to say precisely what occurred.

- I don't believe that WTC7 collapsed due to fire damage, I find this a farcical explanation.

- I don't believe that al-Qaeda is a co-ordinated international network of terrorism. I don't believe a small group of Islamic terrorists would have been able to carry out this attack without military-industrial and intelligence agency supervision.

- I don't think Osama bin Laden was involved in any way. I've never seen any legitimate evidence that he was.

- Therefore, the 9/11 Commission was a total whitewash and a national disgrace, described by Michael Meacher as "a 571 page avoidance of any serious discussion".

- I think the NIST report is a total joke because (a) it doesn't look at all the possible explanations for the collapse of the buildings, and (b) makes lots of assertions that are patently false, and (c) completely lacked transparency as they refused to release the computer models on which their report was based.

There are many related issues that I could go into. No arguing from me, those are my views. I don't want to enter into a debate about them, I'm not going to discuss this any further. If you think they're horseshit, that's your right. If you want to tell me your views you can do, if you don't, don't bother! At least you know where I'm coming from.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I agree it becomes entrenched and also people get very wrapped up in it. I also agree the reffers can get carried away with themselves. I do think they can be shit hot on a lot of 911 stuff, but they can certainly get a bit too entrenched and forget they're supposed to be proper sceptics not dogmatists. Like I don't know what this Kissinger thread was but I once saw them arbitrarily dismissing Sibel Edmonds - now hang on, I don't think you can just take everything she says at face value, but you also can't just dismiss her, particularly as IIRC an internal investigation found at least some of what she was saying about her firing had basis in fact. This was particularly ironic as she kinda contradicts the inside job thing unless maybe if you're going for LIHOP it might fit that.

I disagree with ,ost of what you posted (Al-Qaeda was definitely never "a co-​ordinated international network of terrorism" though, I 100% agree with that), but like you say it's not worth arguing about. What I would say is if I was going to orchestrate 911 I wouldn't fanny about with insanely high risk missiles at the pentagon and exploding buildings or whatever, I'd find some nutters, quietly make sure they had no major obstacles and let them do their thing. If it all goes wrong and the plan fails you've got 100% plausible deniability and would create less but enough public outrage into the bargain. I don't believe that's what happened, just I find a lot of the theories downright fantastical, overcomplicated and full of way more holes than the official account. again, I don't actually believe this is what happened but I think if it was an inside job it would be far more subtle and not discernible by scrutinising footage of buildings falling down on youtube. I also suspect the action film like 'fuck me' unreality of the events has in some way fueled some of the more outlandish claims - 911 was the ultimate media spectacle. I don't have much time for Damien Hurst, but I kind of see what he was getting at when he very controversially said it was like a work of art. Pulling off slamming the second plane in on live TV with the entire world seeing it in no time was something nobody would have thought possible and left an incredibly powerful image that's burned itself into global consciousness. I can see why people don't believe a few psychos with Stanley knives could pull that shit off. The events were so crazy they almost invite you not to believe them. Like when the towers collapsed - how the fuck could that happen is kind of a natural response.

What really pisses me off though is the divisiveness. Plenty of people who thought the invasion of Afghanistan was bullshit, the invasion of Iraq was bullshit and the WOT was bullshit have ended up arguing endlessly about whether 911 was an inside job. Though I agree the sceptical side can be flawed, I think a lot of people in the truth movement have been very guilty of insisting everyone agrees 911 was an inside job or they're a sheeple who believes everything the government tells them or a shill. When I hung around the truth movement it degenerated into basically judging people according to what their views on 911 were. Like I never got the whole outrage over Charlie Veitch - he's just some fucking guy who never had anything original to say about 911 anyway. Why did it matter that he changed his mind? Who cares? Why all the vitriol? And like I'm guilty of chucking around around the tinfoil hat rhetoric in the past, but then I've routinely been called all kinds of deluded sheeple/shill - it very easily just turns into a war. The bottom line is you can agree the consequences of 911 while disagreeing about what actually happened.

I fact, I think it's a very good thing about this forum that nobody has said you are a shill for saying I don't believe 911 stuff.

It'd have been nice if I could put emphasis on 'I'm' in the thread title

Maybe people would have cottoned on to what I meant then, eg the video clearly shows the mainstream explanation IS a conspiracy theory.
If you believe the mainstream view then you ARE a conspiracy theorist.

Bush has himself said quite openly the iraq war had nothing to do with 911

CTers do tend to just post a youtube to prove their point, Icke did it with Jesse Ventura "just go and watch a 7hour presentation on youtube and you'll get it
I know the vid you posted wasn't that long.

Guevarista wrote: To be fair, I think it's supposed to be an introduction.

I like your avatar, from Society of the Spectacle.

Guevarista wrote:
Another one who can't read, lol

wake_up_bomb wrote: Indeed I'm quite surprised other people have read it
I quite like using paranoia, or thinking conspiratorially, i think a good case could be made that conspiracy theory *tm, ie people like Hilder, the early JB society and Conservative Right NWO books; Pat Robertson etc -were "upped"/popularized as a counter revolutionary reaction to the Situationists, New Left Adorno, Habermas etc.

Do you agree that in all likelihood the Conspiracy Theory genre, the source material major CT pundits use is very likely to have been Cointel from the offset?

I think there would be some military strategists in the psyops division, perhaps deep ideological currents, considering the benefit of covertly popularizing conspiratorial narratives, based around the psychological effects the shock and awe of the JFK, MLK assassinations caused, any major event could be used strategically, to create an air of suspicion, to target the public's attention, hide the Coup in a sea of disinformation, to promote false consciousness etc etc. We know there are ex intelligence operatives in the Lucid Dreaming book business and many other links, IMO, there are a number of potential benefits for various different factions for promoting various narratives.
I'd also be surprised if Hamas, Iranian or PLO faithful bloggers didn't frequent western CT forums, blogs etc, to add to this shock and awe, sense of perpetual imminent warfare

I think the key thing is that alot of 9/11 truth comes from a different theoretical, ideological tradition, so some reach totally different conclusions, and some seem to purposefully obfuscate, I think the reality is a very complex factionalism, factions of the establishment, shadow establishment, anti-establishment etc

Guevarista wrote:
Depends if the CT bullshit comes off the likes of Alex Jones or not.
If it does then yes I would very quickly agree its cointelpro bollocks.

If it comes from the mainstream media as the vid in the OP does then the only thing you have to question is the sanity of govt and the media
That was the whole intent of the OP ...not that some people seemed to have got the gist of it yet

I wouldn't say AJ is cointel, just a passionate patriot.
So which are the reliable sources on CT in your opinion andy and who are their sources? see what I;m getting at, I mean who the hell is Brian Desborough anyway that he knows all these reptillian moon goddesses?

Guevarista wrote:
I have NFI about any reptilian crap lol

I've watched 'V' if that counts? :p

That's just some guy who pushed some of the weirder theories onto Icke around the mid nineties and his book on Diana, that was one example, I don't know if you can trust any of them, I like M Tsarion personally, he's my kind of guy, very few niceties lol Icke, Wilcox, Freeman, Rense (literally) are too fluffy imo.

AJ I like he's just a good Christian Patriot, they're traditionally conspiracy theorists, they believe in the devil

Guevarista wrote:
I dunno about a CT, AJ is just a fucking idiot
He thinks the russians were invading on y2k, who's he to say Icke is the turd in the punchbowl ffs?
And who's Ventura to say Icke's in it for the money?!! LOOOOOLLLLL
Venturas fucking rolling in it.

They're all fucking retards.

There's 2 people I give credit to, Bill Hicks and Jacques Fresco. The rest pretty much suck.